Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ranked pages with measured results and links, which is helpful, but says nothing about match semantics, ranking behavior, result limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the search scope followed by return behavior. No filler, though the enumerated resource list is slightly long and unstructured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the kind values fully, the query semantics, the limit behavior, or how this differs from the sibling list_* tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It partially maps to the kind enum by naming resource types, but omits 'patent-family' and 'tool-group' entirely and gives no meaning for query or limit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and enumerates the resource types it covers: systems, engineering stories, capabilities, ideas, technologies, patent applications. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic tool, but it never explicitly positions itself against the numerous list_* siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this search tool versus list_systems, list_capabilities, list_ideas, and the other list_* siblings. The description implies a query-driven lookup but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.